Talk:Ruby Dhalla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Talk About Ruby Dhalla

I ask that other users please stop deleting the statement description of Ruby's clinics as private and for-profit.

The prefacing is relevant and NECESSARY. Ruby has consistently asked she be referred to as "Dr.", so as to claim credibility on PUBLIC health. In evaluating her claims, people should know her clinics are IN NO WAY PUBLIC (like so many MRI clinics springing up). Further, because of inadequate health funding, the Provincial Liberals have decided chiropractic services in Ontario are no longer covered by Medicare

In short "Dr. Ruby's" 'experience' with the health system is all about the same as [Conservative] Stephen Harper, and [Liberal] Keith Martin's visions for the system as a whole.

(RESP)I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I believe that most-if-not-all chiropractic clinics in Canada are private, so Dhalla's status would hardly be unusual on that point. More to the point, I can't see that this would be relevant to Dhalla's beliefs on general health services.

This seems more than a bit partisan, and less than entirely relevant. CJCurrie 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(RESP) To be clear, the POINT IS RUBY DHALLA HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH PUBLIC HEALTH CARE AND SHOULD STOP IMPLYING SHE DOES

(RESP) This is an opinion, and is not even remotely encyclopedic. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Dr. title for Ruby Dhalla is misleading, it makes people believe that she is a physician. The reason why she wants to use the Dr. title is to get the ethnic votes. Being a doctor (physician) in the ethnic culture is very important and they will almost vote for anyone who is a doctor. Many people have said that she doesn't treat her supporters very well, which is why all the old ones have left her. [unsigned]

I'm not sure what your point is. The article doesn't describe her as "Dr. Dhalla". CJCurrie 01:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral Record

I see it has been there for a long time. I don't understand why it is there? Why does she have this record posted yet others don't. I think a link to her electoral record would be more appropiate. Pete Peters 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pete. Some pages for elected officials have these sections, and some don't. It isn't a case of singling her out -- it's simply that similar sections haven't been created for most other pols yet. I don't see the harm, in any case -- it's relevant information for a biography.

There's a similar "electoral record" section on the Stephen Harper page. I believe one or two persons were against its inclusion initially, but no one has complained since them. CJCurrie 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well some need rewrite the program. The electoral resultd were simply cut and pasted onto her profile. If we put this on every candidate, and let's say corrections in the vote tally have to be made, the pain in the arse task of locating every candidate well be too frustrating. So all'n'all, this needs to be reformatted with the proper syntax. Pete Peters 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Party

The article says that Dhalla joined the Liberal Party in 1986 when she would have been 11 or 12. I find this unlikely so I'm going to remove it, awaiting a source if there is one. --JGGardiner 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

I changed the image, so we can use one under a free license. I'm saying this here, becasue my edit summary, failed to explain the reason. --Rob 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... not to complain too much, but the image you've provided is really unflattering. I don't think it's particularly suitable for an encyclopedia entry. CJCurrie 09:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Would you prefer no picture, or do you know of a better free image? Unfortunately, there probably isn't going to be a high quality, professional looking, free image, as there rarely is. --Rob 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We could simply ask permission to use the official parliamentary image. CJCurrie 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you try that, please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission first. --Rob 16:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer no picture to the one that is there. I'm sure that it is the best one available but it might look like it was intended to negatively tilt the article, even though that was not the intent. --JGGardiner 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image for now. Could the parliamentary photo be restored, pending an acceptable free source? CJCurrie 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the unfree image will be deleted. If you don't like the free one, leave it out. But the unfree photo is replaceable, and therefore fails Wikipedia's fair use policy. Being a public figure, its entirely possible for a Wikipedian to go take a new photo of her, and release it freely. But nobody is going to do that, if we use an unfree image instead. --Rob 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)